- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
.
Posted on 11/11/16 at 10:36 am
Posted on 11/11/16 at 10:36 am
(no message)
This post was edited on 11/10/23 at 4:14 am
Posted on 11/11/16 at 10:37 am to DelU249
Candidates would essentially campaign in like 5 cities and ignore the entire rest of the country.
Posted on 11/11/16 at 10:38 am to DelU249
It may help voter turn out. There are many people that feel that their vote doesn't count based on the state in which they live.
Personally, I think that voter fraud would increase dramatically.
Personally, I think that voter fraud would increase dramatically.
Posted on 11/11/16 at 10:39 am to DelU249
Anyone that is against the EC needs to watch this video from Prager U. It explains exactly why we use it and why it is necessary to maintain the Republic.
Do you understand the Electoral College
Do you understand the Electoral College
Posted on 11/11/16 at 10:40 am to Fun Bunch
oh no need to even go over that...anyone who doesn't understand why we have the electoral college is a fricking retard
totally agree, but I think the possibility exists for a backfire. Regardless, to make it clear. I think the popular vote is a horrible, horrible idea and would lead to civil unrest of the violent kind as 45 states have a government that doesn't concern themselves with their needs, wants, etc. I'm not being dramatic, I think within a couple of decades we'd have civil war.
totally agree, but I think the possibility exists for a backfire. Regardless, to make it clear. I think the popular vote is a horrible, horrible idea and would lead to civil unrest of the violent kind as 45 states have a government that doesn't concern themselves with their needs, wants, etc. I'm not being dramatic, I think within a couple of decades we'd have civil war.
Posted on 11/11/16 at 10:42 am to CoachChappy
quote:I think it would be more widespread for sure. because it's not about flipping the state or 2 that would make the difference, you can do it everywhere.
I think that voter fraud would increase dramatically.
Posted on 11/11/16 at 10:43 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Candidates would essentially campaign in like 5 cities and ignore the entire rest of the country.
Clinton and Trump each got around 60million votes Tuesday.
the top 5 metro areas in this country alone have over 56 million people in them (obviously not all 56 million voted).
Posted on 11/11/16 at 10:43 am to DelU249
Voter turnout in countless areas would change without the EC. We have no idea who would have won if it was a straight popular vote.
Posted on 11/11/16 at 10:45 am to DelU249
I favor the EC - and have always done so - because it requires candidates to pay attention to more parts of the country. I realize the results are uneven because even a massively important state such as California (55 electoral votes!) can end up being ignored because it's not a competitive state, but the alternative is a campaign focused only on metro areas. Good luck trying to find a candidate in a metro that doesn't have an NFL, MLB, or NBA team.
If we did get to a pure popular vote, I would actually look for voter fraud to decrease somewhat as it would be that much harder to achieve something important. Adding a few votes in Philly can swing PA, but it is unlikely to swing a national vote. Finally - and this is what many upset with any particular election result miss - you can't just say Hillary, or whoever, would have won if there was no EC. The campaigns would have been conducted so differently, you can't say how it would have turned out. It's like saying you don't like the 3-point shot, so you can safely say that Golden State would not have won the NBA title the year before last. Of course not! Golden State would have played differently if the shot was worth only 2.
If we did get to a pure popular vote, I would actually look for voter fraud to decrease somewhat as it would be that much harder to achieve something important. Adding a few votes in Philly can swing PA, but it is unlikely to swing a national vote. Finally - and this is what many upset with any particular election result miss - you can't just say Hillary, or whoever, would have won if there was no EC. The campaigns would have been conducted so differently, you can't say how it would have turned out. It's like saying you don't like the 3-point shot, so you can safely say that Golden State would not have won the NBA title the year before last. Of course not! Golden State would have played differently if the shot was worth only 2.
Posted on 11/11/16 at 10:47 am to ballscaster
quote:
We have no idea who would have won if it was a straight popular vote.
yeah it completely changes the dynamics
I could see it going either way, honestly
Posted on 11/11/16 at 10:49 am to DelU249
Agreed you can't just look at the current vote totals and think that would happen if the method was the popular vote.
In fact, we have no idea who doesnt vote now because they feel it's pointless. It would be the same situation in states like LA and TX as it would be in NYC and Chicago.
In fact, we have no idea who doesnt vote now because they feel it's pointless. It would be the same situation in states like LA and TX as it would be in NYC and Chicago.
Posted on 11/11/16 at 10:51 am to ballscaster
quote:that's what i'm saying. The common thought by everyone (including dems which is why they want it) is that they'd win every single election
We have no idea who would have won if it was a straight popular vote
i'm not convinced of that. I don't know how it would go, but I suspect that like you said, it could go either way and generally speaking the macro results would be pretty much the same...but i'm just saying it's a possibility. We don't use it for many reasons, many really fricking good reasons.
Posted on 11/11/16 at 10:52 am to Salmon
quote:precisely, it's unpredictable which means the possibility exists that it would be a mother fricker of a backfire.
changes the dynamics
Posted on 11/11/16 at 11:03 am to DelU249
The issue I have with the EC is the way the votes are distributed. We all know the the EC basically goes by census numbers. The census counts every person. Persons counted in the census include citizens, legal immigrants, non-citizen long-term visitors and illegal (or undocumented) immigrants. Not counting illegal aliens costs cities and states federal money, resulting in a reduction of services to all residents.
According to ruff numbers from the election results, around 8.5 million people voted in California. New York had roughly 7.9 million voters. But California gets 55 EV vs New York only 29 EV. So a vote in California is worth more than a vote in New York.
I know HRC won both states, but how many other states reflect higher voter turn out with less EV.
According to ruff numbers from the election results, around 8.5 million people voted in California. New York had roughly 7.9 million voters. But California gets 55 EV vs New York only 29 EV. So a vote in California is worth more than a vote in New York.
I know HRC won both states, but how many other states reflect higher voter turn out with less EV.
Posted on 11/11/16 at 11:12 am to graves1
there are valid concerns like that. but we don't have 1 party rule...and that's the point of the EC.
so far so good. definitely things we can do to further safeguard against 3 cities ruling everyone else.
so far so good. definitely things we can do to further safeguard against 3 cities ruling everyone else.
Posted on 11/11/16 at 11:24 am to DelU249
I just think it should be off registered voters and not off the census. I am one of those people that thinks if you didn't vote, your opinion doesn't matter. Going off the census for EV's gives people who didn't or can't vote a say in the election.
Posted on 11/11/16 at 11:31 am to graves1
quote:
The issue I have with the EC is the way the votes are distributed.
It is a interesting dynamic. I forgot that you received as many EC votes as you had representatives + senators. People bitch about a the votes mattering more and what not, but if you took the population of all 50 states plus DC, and tried to split 538 EVs as equally as possible, Trump would have still won 302-234 (because of rounding, the EVs only add up to 536). If you allow partial votes, Trump wins 305.8 - 231.8.
People moan and groan about California only having 55 EVs, but no one says anything about Vermont and DC getting 3 or Rhode Island getting 4.
Posted on 11/11/16 at 11:32 am to SportTiger1
quote:
Agreed you can't just look at the current vote totals and think that would happen if the method was the popular vote.
In fact, we have no idea who doesnt vote now because they feel it's pointless. It would be the same situation in states like LA and TX as it would be in NYC and Chicago.
Not to mention that candidates would campaign differently. I don think Trump or Hillary spent any time in CA because they knew which way it was going. Given the large population they would have both spent a considerable amount of time there under a popular vote system and much less time in some other state.
Posted on 11/11/16 at 11:44 am to DelU249
It doesn't matter is HRC won the popular vote because she wasn't trying to win the popular vote. It is like saying that the indians won the world series because they had more runs than the cubs. That is not how it is done. Also there are still votes being counted. Alot of military votes may result in a Trump popular vote win. Now that Trump is taking over, people aren't really paying attention to the votes anymore so they may never be counted.
(BTW across all 7 games both teams had 27 runs but my point still stands)
(BTW across all 7 games both teams had 27 runs but my point still stands)
Posted on 11/11/16 at 11:45 am to ballscaster
quote:True, but since there were more (or at least believed to be more) battleground states this year, this would probably be closer to the popular vote outcome than in most recent elections.
Voter turnout in countless areas would change without the EC. We have no idea who would have won if it was a straight popular vote.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News